People injured by the state government or any of its subdivisions would have an easier time suing for damages and could receive larger payouts under a bill approved by a House panel Wednesday morning.
In a near-unanimous vote, the House Civil Justice Subcommittee voted to approve HB 301, by Rep. Fiona McFarland.
The bill increases the state’s sovereign immunity limits, taking them from $200,000 per person to $1 million and from $300,000 per occurrence to $3 million. Moreover, the bill makes clear that political subdivisions can settle cases beyond those limits without having to obtain advance approval in the form of a special legislative act.
It also prohibits insurance policies from conditioning payment of settlements on the enactment of a claims bill.
All changes that lobbyist took aim at during the meeting.
Sovereign immunity stems from the Latin phrase “rex non potest peccare,” which translates to “the king cannot commit a legal wrong.” In legal terms, it refers to the state’s authority to exempt itself as a legal sovereign from civil lawsuits, although the state does allow negligence claims against itself and its subdivisions — agencies, cities, counties, and public hospitals — within limits.
Injured parties can sue for damages and collect within the liability thresholds established by law, but if they win awards in excess of the limits they must go to the Legislature in the form of what’s called a claims bill to collect the payment.
The claims bill process is lengthy and allows the defendant to challenge a jury verdict.
Once a claims bill is filed, each chamber’s presiding officer refers it to a special master, who essentially reconsiders the jury’s recommendation. Claims bills also go before House and Senate committees that consider special masters’ recommendations. Ultimately, the bills must pass in both chambers.
It’s not unusual for claims bills to take years to pass, if ever.
I’m pleased as punch when I walked around the Capitol yesterday, when I saw every local government, every hospital, I think the entire lobby corps was walking around yesterday, and this might be the only bill that the House is hearing this week, so I feel very special.
– Rep. Fiona McFarland
There are more than 100 lobbyist registrations on the bill, which is opposed by the Florida League of Cities, the Florida Association of Counties, the Safety Net Hospital Alliance of Florida, and school boards across the state.
Conversely, the bill is supported by the Florida Justice Association, which represents the state’s trial attorneys.
Florida Justice Association member and trial attorney Eric Tinstman (Photo via FJA)
‘Pleased as punch’
McFarland joked about the amount of lobbying taking place on the bill during her closing remarks Wednesday morning.
“I’m pleased as punch when I walked around the Capitol yesterday, when I saw every local government, every hospital, I think the entire lobby corps was walking around yesterday, and this might be the only bill that the House is hearing this week, so I feel very special,” she said.
“But I’m glad you’re hearing their voices. I’m hearing voices too,” she said, rattling off a long list of names of Florida residents who have been injured by the government and its political subdivisions who have filed claims bills to receive their payments. “I hear those voices.”
McFarland, who filed similar legislation last year, promised she would work with interested parties on the legislation as it moves through the committee process. The bill heads to the House Budget and Judiciary committees next.
McFarland said she was willing to discuss the new proposed sovereign immunity limits but wasn’t quite sure where they should be set.
She won’t negotiate on one key point though — that the new limits won’t apply retroactively. Currently, the bill has an Oct. 1 effective date, although McFarland said she would be willing to reconsider that.
Several lobbyists on Wednesday testified that the $1 million and $3 million limits would jack up their insurance costs and those increases would ultimately have to be borne by the local taxpayer. Governmental entities that are self-insured, and therefore on the hook to pay the claim out of their reserves, would be forced to request a special appropriation from the Legislature to cover the increased liability limits.
McFarland, though, noted that cities, counties, and other governmental entities routinely seek funding requests for special projects and that she herself has filed an appropriations request this year for solar panels. “I’m going to fight really strong for that. My local government tells me they need it. But I would also like to fight really strongly for each of the claims bills that come up. “
Pot-of-gold syndrome
Panhandle Area Educational Consortium lobbyist Bob Harris said increasing the limits will boost the number of lawsuits filed against his clients, school boards in small counties in that region.
Lobbyist Bob Harris (Photo via Messer Caparello P.A.)
“We know there will be more cases. If this happens, you increase the rates to $1 million and $3 million. We call it the pot-of-gold-at-the-end-of-the-rainbow syndrome. If you increase the size of the pot of gold, more people are going to go for that. And again, we know more cases will result in more cost for our school districts,” Harris said.
An attorney who defends the school districts when sued, Harris described a number of lawsuits on his desk that have been filed against the school districts, involving softball players suing their coach for not giving them enough play time or a football player suing his coach for penalizing him for missing practices. Another parent is suing a school district for negligence after their child “got his butt beat” in a physical education class.
“It’s those kind of lawsuits that we’re facing. And if you increase these caps and the amount that’s being recommended, I don’t know how we possibly can afford that,” he said.
In addition to opposing the increase in caps, Harris said that authorizing governmental entities to settle claims beyond the sovereign immunity limits would eviscerate the idea of limits altogether.
“The one thing I can negotiate with when I’m dealing with plaintiff lawyers on these issues is the cap, the sovereign immunity caps. If you take those away, I don’t have that as leverage. The claims are going to be four or five, six million. Every single one of them. And that’s a problem.”
The existing caps were set by the Legislature in the early 1970s and last adjusted in 2010.
Florida League of Cities lobbyist David Cruz recommended that the Legislature tie the caps to the consumer price index, which, he said, would yield new limits of $280,000 per individual and $420,000 per occurrence.
The Legislature also could review other states’ sovereign immunity laws and adjust Florida’s accordingly, he suggested, noting that Texas limits are set at $250,000 per individual and $500,000 per occurrence. Another option, Cruz said, would be to mirror the caps that were proposed in House and Senate legislation last year, which ranged from a low of $300,000 per person to a high of $600,000 per incident.
Cruz stressed, though, that the requirement for a claims bill process should remain intact.
“There is value in going to that special master process,” Cruz said.
Anti-American
Miami attorney Eric Tinstman, a Florida Justice Association member, said the concept of sovereign immunity is “anti-American.”
“I can think of no more anti-American statement than the king can do no wrong,” he said.
Tinstman defended the portion of the bill that allows a governmental entity to settle a claim without first going through the claims bill process and having a special master reconsider the case and make its own findings and facts, he told the committee.
“A special master is how Europe does it. They don’t have juries. They don’t have their people, their community, to decide what the damages are, what the liability is. It’s all special masters,” he said. “We like the way our country works. We leave it to our community, juries, and judges who are appointed and elected by the people, not some special master.”
Tinstman views the $1 million and $3 million caps as reasonable. In response to adjusting the sovereign immunity limits by inflation, Tinstman said, the adjustment should be made to the initial $50,000 cap in 1973 not the 2010 cap.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
SUPPORT
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.
www.clickorlando.com – Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press – 2025-04-30 16:28:00
SUMMARY: Senate Democrats are forcing a vote on blocking global tariffs announced by Donald Trump earlier in April. After market turmoil, Trump suspended the tariffs for 90 days. Senate Democrats aim to challenge the policy and force Republicans to take a stance. While 47 Senate Democrats are expected to support the resolution, Republicans are hesitant, with some opposing it to avoid rebuking Trump. Despite concerns over the economic impact, Republicans are wary of crossing the president. Democrats argue the tariffs harm the economy and increase recession risks, pushing the resolution as a way to reassert congressional power.
SUMMARY: South Florida’s weather for Wednesday, April 30, 2025, features breezy conditions, with highs in the low 80s and an east breeze of 10-18 mph, gusting to 25 mph. There’s a risk of rip currents, extended through Friday, making swimming dangerous. While the day remains mostly dry with a mix of sun and clouds, isolated showers are possible. By Friday, rain chances increase, with isolated showers. The weekend brings higher chances of afternoon thunderstorms, especially on Sunday, along with rising temperatures. A 20% chance of rain is expected on Saturday, and 40% on Sunday.
NEXT Weather meteorologist Lissette Gonzalez says Wednesday afternoon will be seasonable and breezy with wind gust up to 20 mph.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Steve Wilson | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 11:33:00
(The Center Square) – The Florida Legislature passed its farm bill this week that officials say could be the most expansive farm-related measure in the state’s history.
Senate Bill 700 was passed 88-27 in the House of Representatives on Tuesday and is now headed to Gov. Ron DeSantis for a likely signature. The Senate passed the 111-page measure 27-9 on April 16.
SB700, which was sponsored by Sen. Keith Truenow, R-Tavares, would protect farmers from environmental, social, and governance-related bias from lenders, ban the addition of medicine such as fluoride from being added to the water supply, bolster the disaster recovery loan program for farmers and preventing the mislabeling of plant-based products as milk, meat, poultry or eggs.
The fluoride additive ban would not remove any chemical required for water purification.
During debate, Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, mentioned a legal challenge to the state’s law on laboratory-grown meat and possible legal challenges to the labeling part of the legislation.
“Consumers aren’t confused, but if anything, the expansion of alternative meat, alternative protein products is based on demand and companies wouldn’t do it there wasn’t demand for it,” Eskamani said. “The changes in this bill, the goal is to hinder that demand by creating confusion.
“And so to trust the free market means to allow companies to advertise themselves and appeal to consumers based on quality and I think I can speak for some members that some of these alternative products aren’t very good. To insert ourselves between the consumer and the product by forcing them to not to use specific language is a step too far. It restricts free speech and it’s just unnecessary.”
Two amendments she tried to add on the bill to eliminate the labeling and fluoride components died on voice votes.
Under SB700, local governments would be banned from zoning changes that would make it impossible for agricultural facilities to be placed on school property for 4-H and Future Farmers of America.
The bill would also prohibit local governments from banning housing for legally verified farm workers on farms. It would also create a requirement for legal worker eligibility to prevent noncitizens from working on farms.
The bill even stretches to Second Amendment issues, as it will streamline the state’s concealed carry permit process.
The measure would also forbid drones on state hunting lands or private shooting ranges for the purpose of harassment.
Charitable organizations would be prohibited from receiving foreign contributions from “countries of concern” such as Iran, Venezuela, China, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.
“This legislation is a blueprint for protecting Floridians and our freedoms,” said Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson in a release. “We are banning medicine – including fluoride – from Florida’s public water systems. We are keeping foreign countries of concern out of Florida’s charitable organizations.
“We are ensuring honesty in food labeling – milk comes from a cow, not an almond. We are upholding Second Amendment rights and cracking down on drone harassment of hunters.”
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The content presents a description of the Florida Legislature’s farm bill (SB700), emphasizing provisions that align with conservative political values, such as the protection of farmers from ESG-related bias, the restriction on certain food labeling, and measures around the Second Amendment and foreign contributions to charitable organizations. The tone of the article highlights actions that may appeal to right-leaning audiences, especially those supportive of agricultural, conservative, and pro-Second Amendment policies. While the article reports on the legislative process and includes a variety of perspectives, including a Democratic representative’s opposition, the framing and tone lean toward presenting the bill’s provisions positively, suggesting a preference for conservative positions. The article provides factual details but could be perceived as highlighting the bill’s conservative aspects more than its potential drawbacks or opposing views.
